This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Thanks Mark,
Looking forward to a day at Buda and hopefully a day before somewhere catching up with plenty of attendees before heading off to my other golf trip!
Jeff, Tom -
I think that as long you don't penalize a straight shot, everything else is just fine. Let the advantage always go to the golfer who can draw and fade the ball, but as long as the less skilled golfer doesn't feel *disadvantaged* by a straight shot, everyone will be happy/have fun. (Even the 10s who think they're 4s or the 8s who think they're 2s couldn't complain!)
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Mulligan Course update
« Last post by Tom_Doak on Today at 05:08:22 PM »


I know the Streamsong is unlike the Mulligan terrain, but have you not in fact created a fantastic course on a flat piece of land that was reshaped from flat not by you but by others? Why not do it yourself?

Well, if you want to think in those terms, perhaps all the Earth's land was flat before "geology" so all golf courses are created.   :D

I'm not saying it's impossible to create a fun course from flat terrain, just that it's a lot harder than people make it out to be.  For me, it's harder to create something cool with fill dirt than by cutting things away.  On a flat site you usually need to create with fill.

However, I'm headed to Houston tomorrow, and I think I've got a site where I can cut to create my interest.  We will have to wait and see.
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Changes at Deal (Royal Cinque Ports)
« Last post by Mark Chaplin on Today at 04:47:15 PM »
Rich not sure what your point is, you donít agree with reciprocal arrangements or clubs being honoured by the Head of State?
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Can you ever get the drainage right?
« Last post by Lou_Duran on Today at 04:46:25 PM »

It's hard to get drainage right.  As one super has said, "you don't add drainage to a course every year.....just the years you work there."

One of the reasons is adding catch basins is counterintuitive to good drainage in some ways. 

My home course probably has 100+ catch basins, mostly in closely-mown areas, in front, sides and back of greens, and some LZs off the tee.  Typical lies are soft, tight, thin, much too often divoted, and that's during the growing season. 

Management would respond to complaints with "practice and hit more greens" (for poorly conditioned bunkers with lining coming through the surface: "bunkers are meant to be hazards").  Most of the members believe that the course drains well, but I think it has a lot to do with an unusually liberal off-the paths cart policy (play drops considerably when CPO is posted, though quite a few members disregard the signs once past the view from the clubhouse, 1, 10 & 18).

You know the course.  Questions:  what alternatives are there to catch basins on a fairly flat site?  Once graded and built, are the solutions possible without moving large amounts of dirt and $$$$$? 

My beloved Olympia Fields might fit into this category. Regrettably. Unless the PGA comes back.
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Mulligan Course update
« Last post by MClutterbuck on Today at 04:31:12 PM »
Tom, even the question itself might be anathema to you, but:

Now that you *have* come up with greens like the 5th and 7th, would you ever consider re-creating them on said 'blank piece of ground'?

Remember that thread from years and years ago, on the differences between naturalism and minimalism? Why not start moving tons of earth at this stage in your career?

I mean, you and your team can embody/make manifest a natural aesthetic, while at the same time creating something good (and popular) on poor sites.   

I'm more of a stick in the mud when it comes to golf courses: 18 holes with a very large number of Par 4s is the kind of course for me. But, over and over and from so many different folks I keeping hearing about how fun these shorter/par 3 courses are -- and, selfishly, I'm thinking that any course/any kind of course that makes golf more popular in general will be good for me in particular, in the long run.   

After all, what's the big deal about minimalism, anyway?  :)


  But I don't have much taste for the opposite - i.e., moving a lot of earth on a flat site to make it wild and woolly like the Mulligan. 


I know the Streamsong is unlike the Mulligan terrain, but have you not in fact created a fantastic course on a flat piece of land that was reshaped from flat not by you but by others? Why not do it yourself?


That's a tough criteria. If we can include major championship courses, maybe Cherry Hills? But maybe there are logistical issues there too.

I went through Golf Digest's Top 200 and didn't find any others that seemed to fit.

Edit: They had a playoff event at Cherry Hills in 2014 and the winner was -14, so I guess they can still play there.

What about Olympic?

The Pacific Coast Amateur was this year and the winner shot 12 under. 

Most players on that level only use driver on a few holes.

The USGA has abandoned it for the US Open. They will hold a Women's open and the PGA has committed to a Ryder Cup which will be a match play event.
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Water hazard shaping
« Last post by Tom_Doak on Today at 04:22:48 PM »
I actually struggled with the wetland edges to the lakes, because it seemed like you wouldn't be able to tell whether your ball had carried the hazard or not, until you got around to the other side.

Of course, I don't really like lakes on golf courses at all.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10